Al Gore coming to Calgary

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Are you asking? It seems that you are just writing off all posible answers that don't fit with what you want.
Hundreads of scientists are trying to give us the answers and you're writing them off because the local meteorologist makes a few mistakes.

You're not looking for answers, you're hiding from them.

You mean hundreds of scientists have told us that we're the cause of global warming?

I guess by questioning that exact statement, I'm hiding from the answers.

Strange.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So by burning fossil fuels, we humans produce more Co2 then any forest fire, or volcanic eruption combined will do in a year?

Hard to believe...especially knowing how many forest fires there are each year in the Rocky Mountains alone.

Under those circumstances, nature has time to filter and clean itself. How often do major volcanic eruptions occur? The window for Forest Fires is only (usually) in the warmer months, as well.

We as people, though, pollute and produce CO2 gas, (and Methane) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - particularily in places like India and China where they have massive amounts of oil and coal burning factories and plants, and have, at any given time, something like 400 million vehicles on the street. The gases that develop in our sewer systems are equally as bad.

That's a lot of constant pollution, and nature never gets a chance to recover and heal itself. It's constantly being challenged and barraged - and it's made even harder given the losses sustained to the Amazon rainforest.

[Looger]

man, i sure can't wait.

the global mile tax goes in, vehicle usage goes WAY down, and then 2014 or 2020 or whatever the climate changes 'back' due to solar cycles and because this is all in the rememberable life experience of everyone, then we have a cause and effect!

thesis - antithesis - synthesis
problem - reaction - solution

ordo abo chao
oreder out of chaos

[Burninator]

Alot of you people need to get your facts straight. Just because you don't know that we have ways of finding temperatures thousands of years ago doesn't mean these numbers don't exist. Also just because you don't know of a plan to help stop emission doesn't mean there isn't any theories out there.

If you want to know more about Global warming I recommend this book. The Weather Makers. Excellent book outlining global weather trends, past and present.

Also if you want some insight into stopping the warming. Heat: How to stop the planet from burning.

This is one of those issues that is not based on "your feeling" or "your gut". Opinion has little merit against science, especially when ones opinion is coming from misinformation and political bias.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Under those circumstances, nature has time to filter and clean itself. How often do major volcanic eruptions occur? The window for Forest Fires is only (usually) in the warmer months, as well.

We as people, though, pollute and produce CO2 gas, (and Methane) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - particularily in places like India and China where they have massive amounts of oil and coal burning factories and plants, and have, at any given time, something like 400 million vehicles on the street.

That's a lot of constant pollution, and nature never gets a chance to recover and heal itself. It's constantly being challenged and destroyed.

Cows release Co2 into the atmosphere at a daily, continuous rate as well. Does that not also show some cause for concern? And they are part of nature as well.

That being said, I understand what you're saying, and I fully support an development in other, cleaner energy sources.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

You're comparing 2 different processes. That's like saying we don't know what the Flames record was this year because we can't even figure out if they are going to win tonight.

They can take core samples from glaciers, frozen ground, pourous rock, and so and and measure what the levels were thousands of years ago. It is a science that figures out how what conditions were in certain periods. Forecasting is hugely difficult fluid dynamics issues that the biggest fastest computers in the world are designed to try and tackle. They are different skill sets.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Azure

And how do you know that CO2 levels are higher then they have ever been? Do we have all those stats recorded back to the start of time?

Didn't think so.

They can measure the levels in glaciers which have been freezing over thousands of years.

[Azure]

I think a lot of you are taking this the wrong way. I am not saying the planet is 'not' burning up, but I question the belief that humans are causing the majority of it.

Is it a natural cycle, or something out of the ordinary. The planet earth has already recovered from several ice ages, which could only be accomplished by several periods of extreme warming. And I think the warming it would take to bring Earth out of an ice age, is far more devasting then the global warming we have at our hands today.

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cows release Co2 into the atmosphere at a daily, continuous rate as well. Does that not also show some cause for concern? And they are part of nature as well.

That being said, I understand what you're saying, and I fully support an development in other, cleaner energy sources.

Well then there's the argument that people are responsible for domesticating the amount of cattle there are today. There certainly wouldn't be as many cattle on the world if we weren't involved in raising them for food.

Yeah, cows are natural - but how many of them would there be if we as people didn't eat them? Probably not a whole lot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming humanity for global warming - I'm just saying, we certainly aren't helping it, and if we don't take precaution to slow it down, at least, and prepare for the aftermath, then a lot of people are going to suffer.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

Meanwhile, we are having this discussion over a medium that didn't exist 15 years ago. Stupid science again?

It's a funny way to go about things. I presume you trust science to make sure your food is safe and protect you from disease and come up with all sorts of nifty gadgets to save you time, but when it comes to this, they don't know what they are doing.

Do you have this same amount of skepticism about, say, what chemists, astronomers and geologists tell us?

[Azure]

I don't think you can do anything about the amount of cattle needed to feed the world.

Unless you want to turn everyone into a vegetarian.

And I agree 100% with your last statement.

[MarchHare]

Before people bash Gore and the points he's making, could you at least watch his film first? He addresses most of the supposed arguments against global warming that people are bringing up in this thread. I was sceptical about global warming until I saw the film, but now I'm absolutely convinced the problem is very real and human activity is a major contributing factor. Also note that I say this as a political moderate who can't stand the ultra-left tree-hugging hippy crowd.

His movie is no more "liberal propaganda" than a documentary about the scientific evidence of evolution would be. Every point he makes is based on research published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to question the facts, at least watch the film first so you know exactly what your'e debating.

[MarchHare]

Well people are predicting that based on Co2 levels the temperature of the earth will rise x amount in a certain period of time.

Meanwhile, we can't properly predict the temperature going into next week.

Predicting what the daily high and low on a given day next week will be is a vastly different problem than predicting what the mean atmostpheric temperature of the Earth will be next year.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think a lot of you are taking this the wrong way. I am not saying the planet is 'not' burning up, but I question the belief that humans are causing the majority of it.

Is it a natural cycle, or something out of the ordinary. The planet earth has already recovered from several ice ages, which could only be accomplished by several periods of extreme warming. And I think the warming it would take to bring Earth out of an ice age, is far more devasting then the global warming we have at our hands today.

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...

Where did you get that imformation? I just went to their website and found this on front page, says the opposite of what you just said:



Link

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

Also, I read a report somewhere that from 1998-2005, the temperature of the earth remained consistant.

Here...

You mean this University of East Anglia?

That graph on their front page looks to be going up. (edit: Burninator posted it )

Another article (same site linked from the graph)

Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the millennium was likely 1998, and the coldest was probably (but with much greater uncertainty) 1601.


The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report stated:

'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.'

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Before people bash Gore and the points he's making, could you at least watch his film first? He addresses most of the supposed arguments against global warming that people are bringing up in this thread. I was sceptical about global warming until I saw the film, but now I'm absolutely convinced the problem is very real and human activity is a major contributing factor. Also note that I say this as a political moderate who can't stand the ultra-left tree-hugging hippy crowd.

His movie is no more "liberal propaganda" than a documentary about the scientific evidence of evolution would be. Every point he makes is based on research published in peer-reviewed journals. If you want to question the facts, at least watch the film first so you know exactly what your'e debating.

Again it's been well over half a year since I watched his film but how many times does he give sound references with his facts? Alot of his facts, including his trapped gas CO2 levels, were done by a group of scientists working for him that were even funded by him wern't they? Then of course there is still his statement that 100% of scientists agree that we are 100% the cause with ZERO other factors of global warming.

But hey, I guess if you're now 100% convinced after watching the movie than I guess it's doing it's job... no need to read anything from the opposition right?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

man, i sure can't wait.

the global mile tax goes in, vehicle usage goes WAY down, and then 2014 or 2020 or whatever the climate changes 'back' due to solar cycles and because this is all in the rememberable life experience of everyone, then we have a cause and effect!

thesis - antithesis - synthesis
problem - reaction - solution

ordo abo chao
oreder out of chaos

Okay saying this global mile tax does go in in 7 years and the climate "changes back", who benefits? What does the New World Order get out of us driving less? I'm positive that "big oil" and the neo-cons and Bilderbergers have something to do with the global government. Why would they want less money?

What do people like David Suzuki and Al Gore get out of it? They, and the vast majority of the scientific community must be in on the con. What's in it for them? These people are devoting their lives and reputations to this boondoggle so they must be expecting some sort of payoff. What do you think it is?

[MarchHare]

Again it's been well over half a year since I watched his film but how many times does he give sound references with his facts?

IIRC, almost every slide he puts up has a footnote indicating the source of his data.

Then of course there is still his statement that 100% of scientists agree that we are 100% the cause with ZERO other factors of global warming.

I don't recall him ever making that claim.

In fact, he carefully points out that there is a natural cycle of periods of increased temperatures then periods of reduced temperatures and ice ages that have nothing to do with human activity. His main point though, which I challenge anyone here to prove wrong, is that over thousands of years, the average temperature of the Earth has been directly correlated to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and that for the past two hundred years or so humans have been putting far more CO2 into the air than has ever been there before in history.

But hey, I guess if you're now 100% convinced after watching the movie than I guess it's doing it's job... no need to read anything from the opposition right?

If you have links to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that contradict the scientific evidence of human-caused global climate change, I'd be happy to read them.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay saying this global mile tax does go in in 7 years and the climate "changes back", who benefits? What does the New World Order get out of us driving less? I'm positive that "big oil" and the neo-cons and Bilderbergers have something to do with the global government. Why would they want less money?

...not sure how'd they'd get less money when they can always just spike the prices with a war, i've heard estimates as high as $250 / bbl from economists if iran retaliates by mining oil tanker pathways...

money... isn't really the endgame of any of these agendas, it's control. they print the money! the money is largely virtual anyway, it's probably more valuable as a means of monitoring and datamining to 'the elites' than actual cash that they can just crank out at will anyway.

it's the mechanism, the excuse, the idea that all this regulation is necessary. control.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What do people like David Suzuki and Al Gore get out of it? They, and the vast majority of the scientific community must be in on the con. What's in it for them? These people are devoting their lives and reputations to this boondoggle so they must be expecting some sort of payoff. What do you think it is?

i addressed this earlier in the thread, i think at the end of page 2. they can easily be unwknowing dupes and simply devoted to their cause. one wonders why guys such as suzuki, whom i've personally witnessed lying through his teeth, would have any credibility whatsoever were they not promoted by owned and controlled media.

as for gore he's a political player and he receives marching orders from the trilateral commission or the council on foreign relations or the bilderberg group or whatever, the top guys are members of at least two of those three.

[Azure]

From the link..

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2005. The year 2005 was equal second warmest on record, exceeded by 1998. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

Doesn't that say that the earth cooled off a bit since 1998....since 1998 was the warmest year all around...and 2005, came only second to that?

Analyses of overall temperature trends in the low to mid-troposphere and near the surface since 1958 are in good agreement, with a warming of about 0.1°C per decade. Since the beginning of the satellite record (1979), however, low to mid-troposphere temperatures have warmed in both satellite and weather balloon records at a global rate of only 0.04 and 0.03°C/decade respectively. This is about 0.12°C/decade less than the rate of temperature increase near the surface since 1979. About half of this difference in warming rate is very likely to be due to the combination of differences in spatial coverage and the real physical affects of volcanoes and ENSO (Santer et al., 2000), see also Chapter 12. The remaining difference remains unexplained, but is likely to be real. In the stratosphere, both satellites and weather balloons continue to show substantial cooling. The faster rate of recession of tropical mountain glaciers in the last twenty years than might have been expected from the MSU and radiosonde records remains unexplained, though some glaciers may still be responding to the warming indicated by radiosondes that occurred around 1976 to 1981.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm